FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Valencia Xian: on 9/18/17 at 7:59am UTC, wrote happy to join your community, there are many useful and interesting...

Brent Pfister: on 6/6/14 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote What are the requirements or guiding principles for a new theory of...

Brent Pfister: on 6/2/14 at 2:33am UTC, wrote This thread continues at Peter Jacksons essay on May 29. Thanks, Brent

Peter Jackson: on 5/30/14 at 11:15am UTC, wrote Brent, Thanks for your post on my blog, but Wow!' Suggesting the...

Brent Pfister: on 5/29/14 at 23:56pm UTC, wrote Peter, thank you. Good luck! Brent

Brent Pfister: on 5/28/14 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote Judy, thank you very much. Genetic engineering is not needed on Earth, but...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Brent, Quick review; Einstein said Bohr's 'observer is part of the system'...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 13:55pm UTC, wrote Brent, I saw no 'problems' worth marking down. Einstein said we "don't yet...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Chima Ugochukwu: "Notice there am no difference between the black surface area surrounding..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Anthony Aguirre: "Hi Stefan, Yes, I would say that the de Sitter region is locally..." in Cosmological Koans

Georgina Woodward: "The word 'energy' can refer to a measurable. That can be represented by a..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

July 20, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Steering the Happy Path to Humanity’s Future by Brent Pfister [refresh]

Author Brent Pfister wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT

Essay Abstract

Humanity should steer the future with the goals of technological progress, comfortable living, protecting the biosphere, and long-term survival of intelligent life. How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon we can understand those laws and engineer solutions. The feasibility of breakthroughs in energy and interstellar travel determine what is possible. Advances in computing and genetic engineering shape the future along with many other technologies.

Author Bio

Brent Pfister is a software engineer and longtime fan of physics and science fiction living in the United States.

Download Essay PDF File

James Dunn wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 19:04 GMT

I had a similar thought several years ago and wrote a TIP proposal to NIST.gov

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0021v1.pdf

The concept is to broadly support the creation of physics resources and opportunities on a national scale.

In support of your Alternate Futures:

Weather Control System, Global Energy System, and low-cost space transportation

http://global-energy-system.pbworks.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 16:49 GMT

James, thank you for your comments. Your paper gave similar reasons for needing new physics but focused on different topics. I will read some of your referenced papers to understand your ideas for emergent space time. One note, instantaneous processors and infinite memory systems will never be possible--see quant-ph/9908043.

You proposed that NIST catalog quantum entanglement properties...

view entire post

Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 09:58 GMT

Hi Brent,

I wanted to let you know I have read your essay. You cover a lot of ground.I particularly like new techniques needed. The amplituhedron is a really interesting development I have not come across before. Thanks for the hyperlink. I think the many hyperlinks throughout are helpful. Also I like 6.5 Other Ideas. Q. How many people does it take to find a Higgs boson? A. billions. You make it sound so easy to get involved in science in various ways.

Quote:"Recommend discussing religion in a physics blog or presentation like in a modern scientific paper, rarely and respectfully." that is ambiguous. I think you mean: do not recommend discussing religion in a physics blog or presentation like in a modern scientific paper.

You wrote "Earth is currently paradise."A lot of people would disagree with you.

I hope you get more readers as there are a lot of good ideas in there worth sharing.

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 20:56 GMT

Georgina, thank you for your comments.

The idea that it took billions of people to find the Higgs boson came from reading about how many people it takes to make a car. It takes the designers, the builders, the suppliers, the suppliers of suppliers, and all the people who buy the car. It is important that the general public feels involved in science even in areas where very few people understand it. Physicists will need the general public's support to build a new experiment costing many billions of dollars, with delays and huge cost overruns, in an era of many budget problems. Also the Higgs boson could not have been found in the 1960s when it was first proposed because civilization was not advanced enough. This is a great window of opportunity in history to make a breakthrough.

The essay contest asks "how humanity should attempt to steer its own course in light of the radically different modes of thought". I am suggesting be respectful when bringing up religion in a physics discussion, because offending people is unhelpful for gaining consensus. I live in a part of the USA where at the planetarium, the announcer calmly says "please be aware this presentation makes references to extended periods of time". She does not follow this with a statement about religion. That would offend some people who are willing to come and learn. It would also be a logical fallacy to assume a belief of some denominations applies to all religions. This is not about what I believe but about avoiding mixing issues that complicate gaining consensus.

I wrote "Earth is currently paradise, but space colonization is necessary for humanity’s long term survival." I mean the weather on Earth is currently paradise compared with how it was in the past and will be in the future, and probably compared to any other habitable planet that might be found in the galaxy. This is a reference from an old Planet of the Apes movie. This is an appeal to save the environment and also keep going into space even though it is so harsh.

view post as summary

James Dunn wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 20:41 GMT

Arthur,

Regarding: instantaneous processors and infinite memory not being possible

In any proof regarding observable physics momentum, force, energy, power ... are used as variables in demonstrating relationships that prove something. Relativity is based upon the speed of light and related relationship of meters/second, or space/time.

The problem with this is that all the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT

Brent, sorry

Read Arther Brent Phister :.)

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 16:46 GMT

Dear Mr. Pfister,

Your essay was extremely well written and meticulously organized and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I do have one minor quibble about it that I hope you will not mind me mentioning.

Reality is unique, once. Charts are not unique.

Regards,

JoeFisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 02:31 GMT

Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Regarding reality being unique, the Alternative Futures diagram on page 2 of my essay shows different possibilities which depend on many unknown factors. How will people deal with global warming? Are breakthroughs possible in energy and space travel? Can people achieve them in time? When will the next large natural disaster happen? We will experience a single path through the possibilities, a single reality. The diagram is not intended to show Multiverses, of Max Tegmark's level 1 or 3. If those multiverses exist, the people in them would face similar challenges. So would any alien civilizations in our universe. There is no evidence for or against multiverses, but if our universe is infinite, the level 1 multiverse seems likely. Later in the essay I refer to the level 2 multiverse, with different physical constants in each universe.

The essay evaluation criteria contains the words: relevant, interesting, optimistic, realistic. I strove to meet the criteria, but unfortunately my essay turned out to be upsetting in several ways. When I watched the Nova/Frontline show on global warming and energy, I was rolling around on the floor in agony, not thinking about how I would rate the show. After finals, I look forward to reading essays with more optimistic perspectives.

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 05:10 GMT

Dear Brent,

Most of the unsolved problems in physics is due to our perceptions on the fundamental nature of matter and its dynamics with the emergence of time; that restrains the developments in observational science.

As 'Steer' is the control in real-time, further developments in observational science with new technics may imply better environmental regulations to endure Humanity against catastrophes, in that massive use of solar panels and development of new technics on energy storage are the immediate priorities before the observational science reaches capability maturity to explore Nature more profoundly.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT

Dear Brent,

Extremely deep analytical essays in the spirit of Cartesian doubt, optimism and deep knowledge of the problems of modern Humanity. Call for earthlings: "We start the path." We must find the will for the future of our children and grandchildren! Hope - our compass earth. Thank you for all links!

I invite you to my forum and my essay FQXi Essay 2012-2013.

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 21:31 GMT

Thank you Vladimir. Good luck to you too!

Brent

Author Brent Pfister wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 03:50 GMT

Here are some notes on my essay.

One way I learned about FQXi was this great essay: Stardrives and Spinoza by Louis Crane. I wanted to write about it when discussing interstellar travel but was reluctant to include something that would take generations to build. But coupled with new physics discoveries, a black-hole powered stardrive might take much less time to build. Which other essays should I have referenced?

---

A friend commented on my essay that a whole population of 10,000 genetically engineered beings would need to be created for genetic diversity.

He liked my essay but wrote: "I feel like I was steered into a blind alley. Even though it was an interesting adventure, it might not have satisfied the essay's objective." In the abstract, one goal was long-term survival of intelligent life. I researched and wrote the essay mostly in chronological order, knowing in advance that eventually humans will need to leave Earth, the rest of the solar system is horrible for life, and interstellar travel requires new physics. But I did not know how hard it would be locating another Earth, that "habitable planets" are usually not habitable for humans, and there are limits to genetic engineering. Altering human DNA is almost always a bad idea in science fiction, but might be ethical for survival on another planet. We might eventually be able to decode building blocks of human and animal DNA. Even if we could decode alien animal DNA adapted for life on another planet, I think it would be a computationally intractable problem to combine human DNA with alien animal DNA. Even if it were possible, the results might not be as good as natural evolution. And unless a way is found for an intelligent species to not run into the carrying capacity limit of a planet, maybe the alien animals should just be left alone, and the ship should jump to the next planet.

This is an even more environmentally oriented conclusion than I planned. Humans are tied to Earth, and potential technological advances could allow surviving natural disasters but may not give us a second chance on another planet.

Author Brent Pfister wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 18:42 GMT

What would happen if a particle could be accelerated to planck energy? Would it lose all mass and go the speed of light, turn into a black hole, or neither?

My essay says: "I read special relativity is wrong; it does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Instead when a particle gains Planck energy, it loses all mass and goes the speed of light." I think that was in a Scientific American article about 10 years ago but I cannot find it. Somewhere else I recently read just after the big bang, all particles in the universe had planck energy and were massless.

From Scientific American May 2005 "Quantum Black Holes" Bernard J. Carr & Steven B. Giddings For a particle to be both energetic enough and compact enough to form a black hole, it must have the Planck energy.

stackexchange says an accelerated object would not turn into a black hole because only relativistic mass would increase.

Is the accelerated object related to a Planck particle? It is thought that such a particle would form a black hole, then would vanish in Hawking radiation.

Michio Kaku says space and time become unstable at planck energy. We must wait for a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravity to answer this question.

Michael muteru wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 13:48 GMT

hi brent

Nice work,With enhanced computing power humanity should start developing algorithms from nature,hence predict future physical events like weather hence be prepared for future,and avert high casualties.I propose the use of the kardashev cosmic scale for its far reaches.in my essay LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru.or weblink http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101.kindly vote/review my essay.thanks.Wish you all the best

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 00:47 GMT

Thanks Michael, wish you all the best too!

Brent

John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 23:46 GMT

Brent,

Keeping in mind that the earth and all its systems are a complex physical network, it will prove to be much more important to better understand what we have and what we are doing with it, before projecting very far out into space and the future.

For instance, we treat the financial medium as a profit mechanism and so the world's economy has evolved to create notational value, at the expense of any and all actual resources. While this is apparent to many, given Thomas Pikkity's recent book on capital in the 21st century is currently at the top of the best seller lists, the whole issue of the economic structure as a question for steering the future barely rates a mention in this contest.

It used to be that science was the provence of broad minded polymaths, yet today, the criteria is near obsessive focus and rather than using analytic skills to examine social functions, it seems the usual course for STEM professionals is to use their skills to further the destructive tendencies, such as by mathematically concocting ever more elaborately leveraged financial vehicles, or designing ever more effective war making devices on which public debt can be splurged and thus sustaining and growing the bubble of public debt, while extending the reach of this system ever further around the world.

When your generation reaches my age, it is safe to say many of these issues will return home to roost in an unavoidable fashion.

Regards,

John Merryman

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 15:05 GMT

(This post got lost somehow)

John,

My essay does not focus on economics but mentions The Coming Generational Storm from 2004. It describes the combination of financial problems of deficit spending and rising costs for social security and health care that may cause a crisis after 2030. Other problems not mentioned are rising costs for energy and dealing with global warming.

Thomas Pikkity's "Capital in the 21st century" seems to be mostly about the financial system increasing income inequality which I agree is also a problem. If I were to read an economics book now, I might pick "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson.

I learned a very important lesson by thinking about space and the far future. Humanity is tied to Earth and problems with overpopulation and environment cannot be solved by going into space, but must be solved here.

John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 01:14 GMT

Brent,

There is always a conflict of the generations. As I describe it, growing up is like grass trying to push through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you are the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way.

In my entry I start out with the dichotomy of energy and information and how energy manifests information, while information defines energy. That this dichotomy is reflecting in our physiology, with the central nervous system processing information, while the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems process energy, etc.

Also that since energy is inherently dynamic, while information is inherently static, energy is constantly creating and dissolving information, thus creating the effect of time. Which gets to generations. Youth is that energy constantly pushing out and testing its boundaries, while age is the form and definition we acquire with experience. Our awareness is that energy of being, while our knowledge is the form it manifests.

Currently much of the form of society is being compelled by the monetary mechanism it uses to lubricate exchange, to the point that that it has gone from facilitating the market, to being the primary product of the economy, to the increasing detriment of the environment. I think your generation will eventually find this amounts to a form of socially cancerous behavior and curing it will be required before many of the other problems can be addressed.

Given the desire to acquire money on the part of virtually everyone, the force behind this wave is far greater than just the efforts of those riding its crest. That is why, to put it in a nutshell, I make the point that we have to start treating money as the contract it is, not the commodity we have grown to think of it as. As a public contract, it is a public utility. We no more own those pieces of paper in our pockets than we own the section of road we happen to be driving on. This is in fact how it really is anyway, but it just benefits those controlling the system to have us think it is private property, then we are much more willing to extract value from other stores of value, such as communal relations and the environment, in order to trade in this system. If we naturally understood it as a form of public property, most people would get much more attuned to sustaining value in the more organic aspects of their lives, than everything from elder and child care, primary education, local public projects, etc, would be more community based, even using local currencies, rather than at the mercy of those global control functions.

Regards,

John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 02:33 GMT

Brent,

Finally got to your essay. And totally enjoyed the compendium you pulled together.

Very well said: "How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon can we understand those laws and engineer solutions."

I also totally agree with "... steer the future by many individual actions ..."

The only uncertainty I find is in who you mean when you use the word "we". Who is this "we"?

My essay, (here), if I understand yours, has the same basic points as yours. I however, define this 'we' as every person in the world simply because everyone is driven to better their own life, the lives of their families and communities. I look forward to your comments on my essay.

-- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 20:36 GMT

Ajay, thank you for your kind comments. "We" means physicists working to make discoveries, engineers who will make things to take advantage of those discoveries, and everyone who will benefit, which is hopefully all of humanity. I like the way your essay focuses on people in less developed regions using science to improve their lives.

Brent

Luca Valeri wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 12:42 GMT

Dear Brent,

Thanks for your essay. I enjoyed the reading very much. Your love for science is very inspiring.

It is unusual, that in a scientific work someone resumes his influences. However for the question how to steer the future it seems imperative to do that and as far I could see you're the only one doing this. This fact alone imposes me to give you a high rating. (I can see you need a few more ratings to be eligible for the finals).

So my background is a hyper rational older brother and the fact that I still don't understand physics after so many years of trying. So in my essay I explore the question of how physics might be even possible and which are its boundary.

Regards,

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 01:26 GMT

Luca, thank you very much. Those influences really shaped my thinking about the future and are more powerful than anything I could write.

Thank you,

Brent

Author Brent Pfister wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 16:04 GMT

My essay mentioned overpopulation four times but offered no solutions. Two friends said this needed to be addressed (they did not rate my essay). One friend wrote:

I personally think that population control is as important as anything in finding balance with the planet until humanity can expand outward. I think that this is difficult for people to talk about or accept but the "right to...

view entire post

Member Daniel Dewey wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT

Hi Brent,

Nice work! I especially like the diagram on page 5. It seems to me that among your suggestions for how individuals can help, the idea of supporting a cause--- especially political causes--- might be most promising; if enough people start caring about the long-term future, maybe more governmental energy could be directed toward it.

I've recently been hearing about the possibility of designing non-planetary habitats around the solar system--- apparently it would not be too difficult to create radiation shielding and gravity through spin, and it would be significantly easier to manufacture large amounts of living space from asteroids instead of terraforming Mars. It's not an area of expertise for me, but I thought you might be interested.

Good luck!

Best,

Daniel Dewey

Crucial Phenomena

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT

Daniel, thank you! Spin would not provide radiation shielding, but the inside of an asteroid would. I just heard of a Dyson tree. But space is still very expensive and nothing beats Earth.

Good luck to you too!

Brent

Author Brent Pfister wrote on May. 24, 2014 @ 20:38 GMT

My essay says new physics is needed possibly for energy, probably for stopping natural disasters, and certainly for interstellar travel. What are the chances of making another huge theoretical and technological breakthrough like quantum mechanics and electronics?

SLAC's mission statement hints a breakthrough is possible. This is the sentiment of many TV shows and books about physics.

Sean Caroll seems to say no when answering a question about what studying physics is good for.

Fermilab indicates there are benefits to particle physics even if there is no breakthrough.

Everyone agrees there is physics beyond the standard model and general relativity. I hope another surprise breakthrough is possible.

Israel Perez wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 00:18 GMT

Dear Brent

Just to let you know that I have read your essay. It is interesting and well written. You have made a comprehensive analysis and rightly elucidate that science and technology are crucial to solve the problems we have now. Even if that you are not an expert in physics, you grasp the fundamental ideas and focus your discussion on that part. As you realize there are many problems to solve and not many viable solutions. I see that most of your goals are similar to mine and I agree with your view. Hopefully, we humans could join forces to solve these complex problems.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 25, 2014 @ 15:36 GMT

Israel, thank you I really liked your essay too. Good luck in the contest!

Brent

Peter Jackson wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT

Brent,

You just hit the top of my 'read' list and your 'error' message came up! What are the problems? I don't 'mark down' - unless I find one that's all utter drivel of course! At first glance it looked enticing.

As a Sci-fi fan you may like my allegorical first derivation of non-fiction QM!

I'll be back.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 00:13 GMT

Peter, my essay has several problems which are listed in my comments above.

I read your essay before but did not score it. I did not understand it enough to decide whether it seemed correct and was waiting for experts to decide later. But now I will re-read it and comment in your forum.

Thanks!

Brent

Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 13:55 GMT

Brent,

I saw no 'problems' worth marking down. Einstein said we "don't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us." Most are fumbling in the dark.

"there is physics beyond the standard model and general relativity. I hope another surprise breakthrough is possible." It surely is but not if mainstream physicists stay stuck in the current 'rut' of thinking methods.; "How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon we can understand those laws" perhaps never!;

"What hope is there to find new physics that will be of practical help? There are at least 139 unsolved problems in physics and surely other questions that have not even been thought of yet. So a huge breakthrough may still be possible." Yes, well over 139, but it's the same problem. Read my previous 3 essays. All top 10 (2nd 2013) but passed over in the judging.

You testing' analysis was good but is poorly used in theoretical physics. Judy (below - thank you Judy) is right. Breakthroughs are by definition unfamiliar so are dismissed as they're a poor match to embedded beliefs. In a way you say it yourself; "No fact proves or disproves a matter of faith universally". Beliefs trump evidence.

You're also spot on with the amplituhedron, which is another proof of recursive 'quantum gauges', Godel's 'fuzzy logic' and Chaos theory fractals. The evidence of helical paths (spin plus motion) within helical paths at all scales is overwhelming. I simply apply that using 'joined up' science and consistent logic (unpopular in QM!).

I quite understand your initial uncertainty about my model, but 11 year olds have understood (see the end notes experiment) how the supposedly 'impossible' classical explanation of quantum 'predictions' is arrived at. It's silly having to learn a pile of illogical nonsense first to then disprove it. I'll simply set out the EPR paradox in a post below, and how the quantum 'prediction' is reproduced classically.

It's just slightly complex dynamic geometry that QM never bothered to even address! You'll then hopefully understand the essay better. It leads to unification of QM and SR (classical and quantum physics) and needs to be somehow brought to the attention of the so top 'experts'. The knock on effects are inestimable. So far over 200 (of the 139!) resolved!

This is supposed to be about YOUR essay, but mine shows your own views to be correct, so also shows yours worth a good score!...

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT

Brent,

Quick review; Einstein said Bohr's 'observer is part of the system' was nonsense as it must mean Bob and Alice, parsecs apart could instantly 'change' each others findings (heads/tails) by changing their own 'detector setting'. Bohr agreed! but pointed out that's what's found! (alongside a curious 'cosine curve' distribution as their relative setting angles change (not actual but...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 23:56 GMT

Peter, thank you. Good luck!

Brent

Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 11:15 GMT

Brent,

Thanks for your post on my blog, but Wow!' Suggesting the essay says "scientists are wrong about global warming" is a worryingly opposite conclusion from; "Earth was in trouble on all fronts, humans had delayed the hard choices..".! 'Climategate' is about scientists disagreeing over the CAUSE of global warming (and the Essex evidence debacle). I'm sure you know...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 02:33 GMT

This thread continues at Peter Jacksons essay on May 29. Thanks, Brent

hide replies

Judy Nabb wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 22:31 GMT

Dear Brent,

Your essay had a wonderful directness and naivety, a pleasure to read compared to some of the pretentious gobbledygook permeating right to the top. I couldn't find what you wanted to mark it down for, except you did loose a mark for only allowing long existence through genetic engineering! I discuss some of the issues there in my own essay.

I see Peters post above and certainly think you'll appreciate his essay as it seems the only one here actually offering a direction to steer and make progress with a great scientific advance, indeed the one you identify is needed, and self apparent. But I identify why present physicists simply won't depart from present beliefs.

If you need proof just study the conversations in the recent blog here on "Classical Spheres." One omission from your test of theories was the most popular and common technique of "comparison with prior beliefs", so another mark has to be taken from my bag and added as a bonus (three if you can make it happen!)

You also got a bonus for mentioning the embarrassing and crass complacency of the 'crackpot scale.' I do hope you make the cut.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Author Brent Pfister replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 16:50 GMT

Judy, thank you very much. Genetic engineering is not needed on Earth, but may be needed to live on another planet. My essay describes the difficulty in finding another Earth and the much greater likelihood of finding "habitable" planets which require different DNA, like in Avatar. Even animals that lived on Earth in the past with twice the oxygen level might not be able to live on Earth today. My May 13 post above says more about genetic engineering.

Good catch on "comparison with prior beliefs". My essay should have said more about psychology.

I included the crackpot scale to make fun of myself and make the essay more entertaining. I also like quack and anti-crackpot index.

I actually like the top ranked essays that I have read and many of the other essays too.

Good luck in the contest!

Brent

Author Brent Pfister wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 17:57 GMT

What are the requirements or guiding principles for a new theory of physics? (This should be described in a textbook or web article but I have not been able to find it yet.)

A conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. Noether's theorem states that there is a one-to-one correspondence between laws of conservation and differentiable symmetries of physical systems. The conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems. The fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space gives rise to the conservation of angular momentum. Destruction of information conflicts with the law of energy conservation. Concentrations of mass energy, such as elementary particles, are stable only if a conservation law forbids their decay; examples include the conservation of electric charge and of baryon number (which, unless it is somehow violated, assures the stability of protons).

The theory should solve some of these unsolved physics problems.

The theory should be mathematically consistent, meaning it does not contain a logic contradiction and the result of a calculation is not infinity.

The theory should allow feasibly calculating predictions. This means there is no problem calculating because of NP computational complexity.

The theory satisfies the a-theorem.

The theory should satisfy this meta-theory.

Valencia Xian Xian wrote on Sep. 18, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT

happy to join your community, there are many useful and interesting information!

192.168.1.254

report post as inappropriate